Supreme Court's Rulings on PROP 8 and DOMA

I'm hopeful that for once, this country's Government actually follows the Founding Fathers' idea of "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE," and legalizes marriage equality through the embrace of the constitutional right to equality! Welcome to 2013!

Hmmm... isn't it churches that conduct weddings with the pastor/minister/priest/rabbi signing the certificate? Not sure how you can separate the two when it's the church that's directly involved. I'm not totally up to speed on Prop 8 and DOMA so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a case of the State dictating what the churches can and can't do by saying that churches must perform weddings that might go against their beliefs?

And if you do much studying of the Constitution and Federalist Papers as well as look at the context of what was going on at that time that led to the documents being written (Church of England, anyone?), you'll see that the Founding Fathers were much more concerned with the State getting their noses in the Church's business than the Church meddling with the State. Just sayin'...

Hmmm... isn't it churches that conduct weddings with the pastor/minister/priest/rabbi signing the certificate? Not sure how you can separate the two when it's the church that's directly involved. I'm not totally up to speed on Prop 8 and DOMA so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a case of the State dictating what the churches can and can't do by saying that churches must perform weddings that might go against their beliefs?

And if you do much studying of the Constitution and Federalist Papers as well as look at the context of what was going on at that time that led to the documents being written (Church of England, anyone?), you'll see that the Founding Fathers were much more concerned with the State getting their noses in the Church's business than the Church meddling with the State. Just sayin'...

You do realize the words I used were, "I'm hopeful that FOR ONCE, this country's Government actually follows the Founding Fathers' idea of 'SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE,'" right?

Hmmm... isn't it churches that conduct weddings with the pastor/minister/priest/rabbi signing the certificate? Not sure how you can separate the two when it's the church that's directly involved. I'm not totally up to speed on Prop 8 and DOMA so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a case of the State dictating what the churches can and can't do by saying that churches must perform weddings that might go against their beliefs?

And if you do much studying of the Constitution and Federalist Papers as well as look at the context of what was going on at that time that led to the documents being written (Church of England, anyone?), you'll see that the Founding Fathers were much more concerned with the State getting their noses in the Church's business than the Church meddling with the State. Just sayin'...

You don't need to go to a church or have a minister/priest perform the ceremony to get married.....

You don't need to go to a church or have a minister/priest perform the ceremony to get married.....

For a few thousand years or so you did. Right up until not too long ago when the government decided to stick it's nose in the church's business and try to turn what was one primarily a religious matter into a civil one.

For a few thousand years or so you did. Right up until not too long ago when the government decided to stick it's nose in the church's business and try to turn what was one primarily a religious matter into a civil one.

They wouldn't have to if gay couples were granted the same rights under law. In fact, if I remember correctly the whole point of DOMA was to deny gay couples access to federal benefits.

For a few thousand years or so you did. Right up until not too long ago when the government decided to stick it's nose in the church's business and try to turn what was one primarily a religious matter into a civil one.

It is a civil matter because these days marriage is a legally binding contract. Just because something used to be done one way doesn't mean it shouldn't change. You know like slavery...

A church should not have a single say in anything that affects my life if I choose to live that way. Just because someone will believe that tripe doesn't mean someone else should abide by their 'ideals and beliefs'.

I'd like to see the Courts go the other way and say "F__k it. Marriage is a religious ceremony and has no legal weight whatsoever. As far as the government and the courts are concerned, it doesn't exist."
The law shouldn't treat people differently because they went through a religious ceremony. Jewish boys don't get the rights of an adult after their bar mitzvah at age 13, even though they went through a religious ceremony to recognize them as an adult.

I doubt they will do anything more than say it is up to the states to decide their own marriage laws. However, I am hoping that they will decide that any rights giving to a male-female marriage, has to be extended to male-male and female-female marriages. Either get rid of marriage benefits for everyone, or give them to everyone.

For a few thousand years or so you did. Right up until not too long ago when the government decided to stick it's nose in the church's business and try to turn what was one primarily a religious matter into a civil one.

I actually agree with you in the context that the government should not recognize "marriage" as such and only consider the civil nature of the relationship.

But your initial argument is totally off base. Churches would not be forced to do anything.

There is a distinction to be made. Marriage is an ecclesiastical term.
No one is trying to force churches to perform same sex marriages.
This is about legal/civil unions.
The government only recognizes civil unions.
If you get married by a cleric w/o a license-certificate from the government.
It is not legal and/or binding.
I see no controversy here.

It is primarily a language debate.
Religion has no place in this discussion, same as facts have no place in religion.

I try to avoid politics, but this is essentially a taxes/insurance thing isn't it?

The idea that a heterosexual couple "should" pay less taxes or receive better insurance rates than a homosexual couple is as illogical as it gets.

Nobody is trying to force the church to administer homosexual marriages right? It's just a matter of homosexual marriages receiving the same financial perks as heterosexual ones right? If so, how is this even an issue?

As the abundance of question marks imply, I'm not overly informed on the issue. It just seems too obvious to actually spend any time on. Is it, by some remote chance, more complicated than it seems?

I try to avoid politics, but this is essentially a taxes/insurance thing isn't it?

The idea that a heterosexual couple "should" pay less taxes or receive better insurance rates than a homosexual couple is as illogical as it gets.

Nobody is trying to force the church to administer homosexual marriages right? It's just a matter of homosexual marriages receiving the same financial perks as heterosexual ones right? If so, how is this even an issue?

As the abundance of question marks imply, I'm not overly informed on the issue. It just seems too obvious to actually spend any time on. Is it, by some remote chance, more complicated than it seems?

I don't think logic is the strong suit of the people against gay marriage at this point.

4-5 years ago, I was against gay-marriage. Why? I don't now, it just seemed "not right". I was uninformed, naive, and perhaps a bit bigoted.

Now, I'm for it. I've listened to the arguments for and against, thought about it, and I've landed on the "for" side. Kind of a no-brainer once I heard both side's opinions and gave it a bit of thought.

IMO, the government hijacked the church's role in marriage and corrupted the concept of marriage, historically and cross-culturally a religious ordinance of two people joining in a relationship before their diety, by throwing financial and legal benefits into the mix. I know that this will never happen, but take the government out of the picture by taking away any extra legal/financial benefits provided currently by marriage and the problem goes away. Non-religious people can have their long-term, monogomous relationships if they choose without feeling like second-class citizens in comparison to those who choose to bind and commit their relationship before their diety. Is this where civil unions come in? I'm still struggling with that...

IMO, the government hijacked the church's role in marriage and corrupted the concept of marriage, historically and cross-culturally a religious ordinance of two people joining in a relationship before their diety, by throwing financial and legal benefits into the mix. I know that this will never happen, but take the government out of the picture by taking away any extra legal/financial benefits provided currently by marriage and the problem goes away. Non-religious people can have their long-term, monogomous relationships if they choose without feeling like second-class citizens in comparison to those who choose to bind and commit their relationship before their diety. Is this where civil unions come in? I'm still struggling with that...

I get what you are saying and I pretty much agree with you. The government should provide these legal and financial benefits to any two people who agree to be bound in such a way legally. Without it being labeled "marriage". I'm not sure what comes with "civil union" but it sounds like it needs to be upgraded. Brothers and sisters, children and parents, or even just best friends should be able to enter into a civil union and receive the same benefits as marriage. Whether or not these people are "married" should not matter.

I don't think that the government should redefine a sacred religious tradition, such as marriage. I think the bar-mitzvah example is a good one too. It would seem silly if the government gave out legal adult status and benefits to 13 year olds who went through the ceremony. What if they did that and a bar-mitzvah, by law, could only be participated in by those of jewish decent(not sure if this is the case)? That would exclude everyone but jewish people from being considered legal adults at 13 causing everyone to want this jewish tradition to be redefined legally so that anyone could have a bar-mitzvah.

Marriage is obviously much more of a cultural staple here but maybe it shouldn't be. At least to the extent that it matters so much legally. Let the religious people keep their traditions in tact as they define them, let the government abandon their recognition and involvement in such traditions, and let the government upgrade civil unions to replace marriage. If same-sex couples still want to get married after that, the can take it up with the churches.